This is not an attack on communication altogether but an explanation of how communication often defeats the purpose of the thing being communicated about.

A commom example of this is someone wanting their partner to initiate sex more. The person is usually not necessarily wanting more sex, but wanting to feel more sexually desired by their partner.

They could simply communicate this, and their partner may well initiate sex more, but the act of communicating it will have altered what it represents. It no longer necessarily indicates the level of sexual desire that the person wishes their partner felt for them, but instead simply represents their partner’s desire to make them happy, which isn’t what the person felt their partner lacked in feeling for them.

Worse still is that whilst not communicating may mean nothing changes, communicating could permanently poison the well, so-to-speak. The person may never be able to trust that their partner’s increased initiation of sex represents a higher level of sexual desire for them, even if at some point in the future it actually does. By not communicating, the person at least allows the opportunity for it to occur naturally and be confident that it represents what they want it to.

This logic applies to so many situations where I see “communication” suggested as the resolution. A man wanting his girlfriend to be into the same kink as him. A woman wanting her boyfriend to say "I love you" more. I could probably think of a thousand examples. I wouldn’t be surprised if communication is suggested more often in situations where it would defeat the purpose than where it would not.

I think people with a high capacity for cognitive dissonance or with poor theory of mind could be served well by communication even in these situations, because they can’t follow the logic I outline above on their own and will live in blissful ignorance. For others, communication only defeats the purpose.